| January 13, 1999 I am happy to announce that my essays have attracted a number of replys. As I forewarned, here are a couple of the replys, edited to remove obscure personal references. The names have been deleted to protect the guilty. Keep those replys coming. Dear Mr. Ranter and Raver: <<You are the voice of reason. Perhaps the most revulsive by-product of Clinton's (I hate to refer to him as "President") salacious acts is the "cop-out" statement that we have heard from many congressman (all PARTISAN DEMOCRATS) that "although we find Clinton's conduct morally reprehensible, it is not impeachable." I really wish they would just admit what is really driving them -- PARTISANSHIP, PURE AND SIMPLE. And, while we're on the subject, there is no doubt that many republicans are also being driven by pure partisanship. One difference, however, these republicans have the law and the facts on their side.>> Dear Reader: Thank you for your comments. Your letter raises the issue of "partisanship." The allegation of "partisanship" has become a mantra for those who defend the President and I don't get it. We have two parties because there are usually two sides to every issue. As to be expected, the Country has divided into two "partisan" camps: Those who believe that being serviced by an intern, covering up the conduct, lying about it under oath, covering up the lying about it under oath, lying under oath about lying about it under oath, and lying under oath about covering up the lying about it under oath, is consistent with being President of the United States, and those who believe that it is not. As to be expected, the former tend to be Democrats and the latter Republicans. What's the big deal about taking opposing positions and acting on your beliefs? Dear Mr. Ranter and Raver: <<Now that I have had the 1998 US President's History recapped (well.........half of this info is brand new to me because I am not as knowledged on the subject), I say: Clinton was wrong. Clinton committed a crime. However, Clinton should not be impeached. Why? What do US Pres, in their second-term, live for? Their legacy. Pres. Clinton' s legacy has been defined as 'Monica Lewinsky'. Now, do we think that the country would be better off with Al Gore as its head (perhaps we will find out in 2000)? It is not that Clinton is that effective (though he surrounds himself with some pretty good people), it's that the country will suffer inevitably from the impeachment of its head. A subconscious lack of national confidence. (Even though the market did miracles after the House voted to impeach the Pres.) All of this talk is for none because there is no way the Senate will muster a 2/3 impeachment vote.>> Dear Reader: Thank you for your comments. I would like to respond to your statement that: What do US Pres., in their second term, live for? Their legacy. The President has been prattling on about his "legacy" for years and you (and many others) have aparently internalized that the President's obsession with how history will treat him is to be expected and is normal. It is not. Do you think that Ronald Reagan ever cared what his "legacy" was going to be? George Bush is so uninterested about his "legacy" that he has no plans to write an autobiography. To be concerned about your "legacy" means to be concerned about, and to be motivated by, how you think history will treat you. To understand what this means, how many of you believe that Bill Clinton ever sat in a room and thought: "You know, this decision will probably be unpopular, and future historians may disagree with it, but dammit, it is the right thing to do and I am going to do it!" I remember reading an article several years ago about how the President had been reading Presidential biographies and came to the conclusion that for a President to be recognized as "great," the President needed to lead the Country through either a depression or a war. The sense of the article was that President Clinton was almost saddened by his conclusion that because the Country was experiencing peace and prosperity, he would not be recognized as a "great" President. One could sense his yearning for some dramatic crises that would enable him to rise to the occasion. The fundamental problem with Bill Clinton is not that he is a philanderer or a perjurer. The fundamental problem is that he is so self-absorbed, that he is incapable of ever placing the interests of the Country ahead of his own. The Country needed Clinton to resign a year ago. He could not do it (bad for the legacy). At second best, the Country needed Clinton to come clean quickly and plead for mercy. He could not do it (bad for the legacy). As a result, he is still President, but look at the political mess we are in. Gosh, if only he had thought about his legacy. Thank you for your listening. DS |